CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 56Quantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureQuantum many-body systemsQuantum Mechanics and Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Subspace Variational Quantum Simulator

Open access
Heya, Kentaro, Nakanishi, Ken M, Mitarai, Kosuke, Yan, Zhiguang, Zuo, Kun, Suzuki, Yasunari, Sugiyama, Takanori, Tamate, Shuhei, Tabuchi, Yutaka, Fujii, Keisuke, Nakamura, Yasunobu·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1904.08566arXiv 1904.08566

Preprint — published as 10.1103/physrevresearch.5.023078

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Quantum simulation is one of the key applications of quantum computing, which accelerates research and development in the fields such as chemistry and material science. The recent development of noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices urges the exploration of applications without the necessity of quantum error correction. In this paper, we propose an efficient method to simulate quantum dynamics driven by a static Hamiltonian on NISQ devices, named subspace variational quantum simulator (SVQS). SVQS employs the subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver (SSVQE) to find a low-lying eigensubspace and extends it to simulate dynamics within the subspace with lower overhead compared to the existing schemes. We experimentally simulate the time-evolution operator in a low-lying eigensubspace of a hydrogen molecule. We also define the subspace process fidelity as a measure between two quantum processes in a subspace. The subspace time evolution mimicked by SVQS shows the subspace process fidelity of $0.88$-$0.98$.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1904.08566

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent works extend the algorithms to use adaptive ansatz to reduce circuit depth.

    “Recent works also extend the algorithms to use adaptive ansatz to reduce the circuit depth [119, 120]”

    From Variational quantum algorithms (2021) · cites this paper as [120]

    The Introduction says SVQS restricts diagonalization to a low-lying eigensubspace and is expected to permit a shallower circuit. The SSVQE section describes a hardware-efficient ansatz, but does not say it is adaptive or that adapting the ansatz reduces circuit depth. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Density-Functional Theory for Time-Dependent Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984). · DOI · Paper page
  2. R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982). · DOI · Paper page
  3. I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  4. S. Lloyd, Universal quantum simulators, Science 273, 1073 (1996). · DOI · Paper page
  5. N. Wiebe, D. W. Berry, P. Høyer, and B. C. Sanders, Simulating quantum dynamics on a quantum computer, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 445308 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  6. D. Poulin, A. Qarry, R. Somma, and F. Verstraete, Quan- tum Simulation of Time-Dependent Hamiltonians and the Convenient Illusion of Hilbert Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 170501 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  7. A. M. Childs and N. Wiebe, Hamiltonian simulation using lin- ear combinations of unitary operations, Quantum Inf. Comput. 12, 901 (2012).
  8. K. Seki and S. Yunoki, Quantum power method by a superposi- tion of time-evolved states, PRX Quantum 2, 010333 (2021). · DOI
  9. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating Hamiltonian Dynamics with a Truncated Taylor Series, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090502 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  10. D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, Y. Su, X. Wang, and N. Wiebe, Time-dependent Hamiltonian simulation with L 1 -norm scaling, Quantum 4, 254 (2020). · DOI
  11. E. Campbell, Random Compiler for Fast Hamiltonian Simula- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070503 (2019). · DOI
  12. G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian Simulation by Quantum Signal Processing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 010501 (2017). · DOI
  13. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Quantum codes on a lattice with boundary, arXiv:quant-ph/9811052. · arXiv
  14. A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computa- tion, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  15. S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices, Nat. Phys. 14, 595 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  16. A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, On the complexity and verification of quantum random circuit sam- pling, Nat. Phys. 15, 159 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  17. J. Chen, F. Zhang, C. Huang, M. Newman, and Y. Shi, Classical simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits (2018), arXiv:1805.01450. · arXiv
  18. M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio et al., Variational quantum algorithms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 625 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  19. A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O'brien, A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  20. J. R. McClean, J. Romero, R. Babbush, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms, New J. Phys. 18, 023023 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  21. B. Bauer, D. Wecker, A. J. Millis, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Hybrid Quantum-Classical Approach to Correlated Ma- terials, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031045 (2016). · DOI
  22. A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets, Nature (London) 549, 242 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  23. Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Efficient Variational Quantum Simu- lator Incorporating Active Error Minimization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  24. X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Theory of variational quantum simulation, Quantum 3, 191 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  25. S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational Quantum Simulation of General Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010501 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  26. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imagi- nary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 75 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  27. C. Cîrstoiu, Z. Holmes, J. Iosue, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational fast forwarding for quantum simulation beyond the coherence time, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 82 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  28. M. Otten, C. L. Cortes, and S. K. Gray, Noise-resilient quantum dynamics using symmetry-preserving ansatzes, arXiv:1910.06284. · arXiv
  29. B. Commeau, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Variational Hamiltonian diagonalization for dynamical quantum simulation, arXiv:2009.02559. · arXiv
  30. J. Gibbs, K. Gili, Z. Holmes, B. Commeau, A. Arrasmith, L. Cincio, P. J. Coles, and A. Sornborger, Long-time simulations with high fidelity on quantum hardware, arXiv:2102.04313. · arXiv
  31. K. M. Nakanishi, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver for excited states, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033062 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  32. J. R. McClean, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. Carter, and W. A. de Jong, Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states, Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  33. J. R. McClean, Z. Jiang, N. C. Rubin, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, Decoding quantum errors with subspace expansions, Nat. Commun. 11, 636 (2020). · DOI
  34. T. Takeshita, N. C. Rubin, Z. Jiang, E. Lee, R. Babbush, and J. R. McClean, Increasing the Representation Accuracy of Quantum Simulations of Chemistry without Extra Quantum Resources, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011004 (2020). · DOI
  35. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das paulische Äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928). · DOI · Paper page
  36. S. B. Bravyi and A. Y. Kitaev, Fermionic quantum computation, Ann. Phys. 298, 210 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  37. D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Efficient z gates for quantum computing, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022330 (2017). · DOI
  38. V. Bonch-Bruevich, S. Tyablikov, and R. J. Seeger, The green function method in statistical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 33, 597 (1965). · DOI
  39. A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, I. Dzyaloshinski, R. A. Silverman, and G. H. Weiss, Methods of quantum field theory in statistical physics, Phys. Today 17, 78 (1964). · DOI
  40. K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, and R. Yoshii, Out-of-time-order correlators in quantum mechanics, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2017) 138. · DOI
  41. A. Wisniacki, Loschmidt echo, Scholarpedia 7, 11687 (2012). · DOI
  42. E. Lucero, J. Kelly, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, M. Mariantoni, M. Neeley, A. D. O'Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, T. Yamamoto, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Reduced phase error through optimized control of a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. A 82, 042339 (2010). · DOI
  43. J. M. Gambetta, A. D. Córcoles, S. T. Merkel, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. M. Chow, C. A. Ryan, C. Rigetti, S. Poletto, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Characterization of Addressability by Simultaneous Randomized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 240504 (2012). · DOI
  44. C. Rigetti and M. Devoret, Fully microwave-tunable universal gates in superconducting qubits with linear couplings and fixed transition frequencies, Phys. Rev. B 81, 134507 (2010). · DOI
  45. J. M. Chow, A. D. Córcoles, J. M. Gambetta, C. Rigetti, B. R. Johnson, J. A. Smolin, J. R. Rozen, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Simple All-Microwave Entangling Gate for Fixed-Frequency Super- conducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 080502 (2011). · DOI
  46. E. Magesan, J. M. Gambetta, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, J. M. Chow, S. T. Merkel, M. P. da Silva, G. A. Keefe, M. B. Rothwell, T. A. Ohki, M. B. Ketchen, and M. Steffen, Efficient Measurement of Quantum Gate Error by Interleaved Random- ized Benchmarking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 080505 (2012). · DOI
  47. P. Watts, M. O'Connor, and J. Vala, Metric structure of the space of two-qubit gates, perfect entanglers and quantum con- trol, Entropy 15, 1963 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  48. A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for su- perconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  49. A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Approaching Unit Visibility for Control of a Superconducting Qubit with Dispersive Readout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060501 (2005). · DOI
  50. E. Jeffrey, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, J. Kelly, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. Megrant, P. J. J. O'Malley, C. Neill, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Fast Accurate State Measurement with Superconducting Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190504 (2014). · DOI
  51. E. A. Sete, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Korotkov, Quantum theory of a bandpass Purcell filter for qubit readout, Phys. Rev. A 92, 012325 (2015). · DOI
  52. J. Y. Mutus, T. C. White, R. Barends, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, C. Neill, P. J. J. O'Malley, P. Roushan, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, K. M. Sundqvist, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Strong environmental coupling in a Josephson parametric am- plifier, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 263513 (2014). · DOI
  53. P. J. J. O'Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jeffrey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Love, H. Neven, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. M. Martinis, Scalable Quan- tum Simulation of Molecular Energies, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031007 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  54. J. R. McClean, K. J. Sung, I. D. Kivlichan, Y. Cao, C. Dai, E. S. Fried, C. Gidney, B. Gimby, P. Gokhale, T. Häner, T. Hardikar, V. Havlíček, O. Higgott, C. Huang, J. Izaac, Z. Jiang, X. Liu, S. McArdle, M. Neeley, T. O'Brien, B. O'Gorman, I. Ozfidan, M. D. Radin, J. Romero, N. Rubin, N. P. D. Sawaya, K. Setia, S. Sim, D. S. Steiger, M. Steudtner, Q. Sun, W. Sun, D. Wang, F. Zhang, and R. Babbush, Openfermion: The electronic struc- ture package for quantum computers, arXiv:1710.07629. · arXiv
  55. R. M. Parrish, L. A. Burns, D. G. A. Smith, A. C. Simmonett, A. E. DePrince, E. G. Hohenstein, U. Bozkaya, A. Y. Sokolov, R. Di Remigio, R. M. Richard, J. F. Gonthier, A. M. James, H. R. McAlexander, A. Kumar, M. Saitow, X. Wang, B. P. Pritchard, P. Verma, H. F. Schaefer, K. Patkowski, R. A. King, E. F. Valeev, F. A. Evangelista, J. M. Turney, T. D. Crawford, and C. D. Sherrill, Psi4 1.1: An open-source electronic struc- ture program emphasizing automation, advanced libraries, and interoperability, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 3185 (2017). · DOI
  56. T.-C. Yen, V. Verteletskyi, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measuring all compatible operators in one series of single-qubit measure- ments using unitary transformations, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 2400 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  57. A. Jena, S. Genin, and M. Mosca, Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets, arXiv:1907.07859. · arXiv
  58. V. Verteletskyi, T.-C. Yen, and A. F. Izmaylov, Measurement optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 124114 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  59. P. Gokhale, O. Angiuli, Y. Ding, K. Gui, T. Tomesh, M. Suchara, M. Martonosi, and F. T. Chong, Minimizing state preparations in variational quantum eigensolver by partitioning into commuting families, arXiv:1907.13623. · arXiv
  60. O. Crawford, B. van Straaten, D. Wang, T. Parks, E. Campbell, and S. Brierley, Efficient quantum measurement of Pauli oper- ators in the presence of finite sampling error, Quantum 5, 385 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  61. K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Error Mitigation for Short-Depth Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  62. S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Hybrid quantum- classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  63. F. B. Maciejewski, Z. Zimborás, and M. Oszmaniec, Mitigation of readout noise in near-term quantum devices by classical post-processing based on detector tomography, Quantum 4, 257 (2020). · DOI
  64. Y. Chen, M. Farahzad, S. Yoo, and T.-C. Wei, Detector tomogra- phy on IBM quantum computers and mitigation of an imperfect measurement, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052315 (2019). · DOI
  65. H. Kwon and J. Bae, A hybrid quantum-classical approach to mitigating measurement errors in quantum algorithms, IEEE Trans. Comput. 70, 1401 (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  66. K. M. Nakanishi, K. Fujii, and S. Todo, Sequential minimal op- timization for quantum-classical hybrid algorithms, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043158 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  67. M. Mohseni, A. T. Rezakhani, and D. A. Lidar, Quantum- process tomography: Resource analysis of different strategies, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032322 (2008). · DOI
  68. N. Yoshioka, Y. O. Nakagawa, Y. Ohnishi, and W. Mizukami, Variational quantum simulation for periodic materials, arXiv:2008.09492. · arXiv
  69. X. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, Quantum Sim- ulation with Hybrid Tensor Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 040501 (2021). · DOI
  70. K. Fujii, K. Mitarai, W. Mizukami, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Deep variational quantum eigensolver: A divide-and-conquer method for solving a larger problem with smaller size quantum comput- ers, arXiv:2007.10917. · arXiv
  71. C. Cao, J. Hu, W. Zhang, X. Xu, D. Chen, F. Yu, J. Li, H. Hu, D. Lv, and M.-H. Yung, Towards a larger molecular simulation on the quantum computer: Up to 28 qubits systems accelerated by point group symmetry, arXiv:2109.02110. · arXiv
  72. K. Yamamoto, D. Z. Manrique, I. Khan, H. Sawada, and D. M. Ramo, Quantum hardware calculations of periodic systems: Hydrogen chain and iron crystals, arXiv:2109.08401. · arXiv
  73. A. Luis and J. Peřina, Optimum phase-shift estimation and the quantum description of the phase difference, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4564 (1996). · DOI
  74. R. Cleve, A. Ekert, C. Macchiavello, and M. Mosca, Quan- tum algorithms revisited, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 454, 339 (1998). · DOI
  75. V. Bužek, R. Derka, and S. Massar, Optimal Quantum Clocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2207 (1999). · DOI
  76. A. W. Harrow, A. Hassidim, and S. Lloyd, Quantum Algorithm for Linear Systems of Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150502 (2009). · DOI · Paper page
  77. P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C J Carey, İ. Polat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen, E. A. Quintero, C. R. Harris, A. M. Archibald, A. H. Ribeiro, F. Pedregosa, P. van Mulbregt, and SciPy 1.0 Contributors, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  78. T. Sugiyama, S. Imori, and F. Tanaka, Self-consistent quantum tomography with regularization, Phys. Rev. A 103, 062615 (2021). · DOI
  79. M. J. D. Powell, An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives, Comput. J. 7, 155 (1964). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Heya, K., Nakanishi, K. M., Mitarai, K., Yan, Z., Zuo, K., Suzuki, Y., Sugiyama, T., Tamate, S., Tabuchi, Y., Fujii, K., & Nakamura, Y.
Affiliations
  • RIKEN Center for Quantum Computing (JP)
  • Institute for Physics of Intelligence (JP)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JP)
  • NTT (Japan) (JP)
  • Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo (JP)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
5
Issue
2
ISSN
2643-1564 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1904.08566
arXiv
1904.08566
OpenAlex
W4367625911
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Physical Review Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JPM-JER1601, JPMJPR1916, JPMJCR1673, JPMJPR2019, JPMJMS2061)
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (JPMXS0118068682, JPMJER1601, JPMJCR1673, JP-MXS0120319794, JP16H02211, JPMJMS2061)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20J13955, 21J15221, 20K22330, JPMJER1601, JPMXS0120319794, JPMJMS2061, 16H02211, JPMJCR1673)
  • Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (JPMJCR1673)
  • Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology (JPMJPR2019, JPMJPR1916, JPMJMS2061)
  • Exploratory Research for Advanced Technology (JPMJER1601)
  • Moonshot Research and Development Program (JPMJMS2061)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
Keywords
quantum dynamics simulation, evolution operator, molecular hydrogen, NISQ devices, noisy intermediate-scale quantum computing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review